Ship arrest

/in , , , /by

By Irantzu Sedano and Zuberoa Elorriaga

The usual short stay of ships in the ports where they load and unload goods, as well as the international nature of the maritime sector, means that, on many occasions, it is very difficult to recover a debt from shipowners and charterers. It is in this context that the concept of ship arrest emerges.

Ship arrest is a legal tool that enables the creditor of a claim, which must be defined as a “maritime claim” to secure the detention of the ship concerned in order to guarantee its payment. This precautionary, preventive, and urgent legal action can also be regarded as a burdensome measure due to the economic damage it can cause to the operator of the vessel, as it can lead to delays in the vessel’s navigation plans, unforeseen costs due to its stay at berth in port, etc. It can also be a costly measure for the person requesting the arrest if it is wrongly or improperly proposed.

Reasons for the arrest
The arrest of ships pursues different objectives, which vary depending on the asserted maritime claim. That is to say, when the maritime claim consists of a monetary claim, the arrest will operate so that the shipowner/charterer (debtor) provides sufficient security to lift the ship arrest, with the attaching creditor obtaining security. When the maritime claim consists of a claim to the ownership of the vessel, the arrest will ensure the application of an eventual sentence to hand over the vessel.

The detention of the vessel may be replaced by the provision of a guarantee or substitute security by the shipowner/charterer before the court applying the measure, since the ultimate objective of the arrest is to guarantee the effectiveness of a later judgement on the merits of the claim / “maritime claim”, ensuring thus the possibility of its enforcement for the creditor/attaching creditor’s.

In the event that the arrest is requested unjustifiably or improperly, the shipowner/charterer of the vessel is entitled to claim for any damages resulting from the arrest.

Requirements for the ship arrest
The international legal regime in force in Spain is the International Convention on Arrest of Ships (Geneva 1999), which entered into force on 14 September 2011. At the national level, we must resort to the Maritime Navigation Act 14/2014, of 24 July.

The requirements are as follows:

  • The allegation of a “maritime claim”: ships may only be arrested on the basis of maritime claims and not on the basis of any other claim. The list of so-called “maritime claims” is numerus clausus and is set out in Article 1(1) of the 1999 Geneva Convention. The creditor of the precautionary measure, requesting the arrest, shall be exonerated from proving his claim, being sufficient for him to allege its existence and the cause for it.
  • The arrest of the “offending ship”: arrest of the vessel causing the claim is permitted provided that the person who was the owner/bareboat lessor of the ship at the time the claim arose is still the owner/bareboat lessor at the time the arrest is requested. Under certain conditions it also provides for the possibility of arresting other vessels owned by the person liable for payment of the claim (“sister ships”).
  • The existence of periculum in mora: this refers to the risk that the ship, in principle the only property of the debtor known to the creditor, may at any time leave the port leaving the creditor without guarantees.
  • The obligation to deposit a guaranteed by the attaching creditor: its purpose is to ensure that, in the event that the arrest is requested improperly and without complying with the legal requirement, the damages generated to the shipowner/charterer as a result of the incorrect arrest can be economically alleviated.
  • The pendency of the proceedings: the arrest may be requested before, during or after the commencement of the legal proceedings on the merits. The lawsuit will be brought before the court that is to hear the merits of the dispute.

Release of the arrest and the protective measure
In order to confirm ship’s release from the arrest, the arrested party (shipowner) must lodge a replacement security or guarantee before the court covering the amount claimed by its creditor (arresting party), provided that such amount does not exceed the value of the arrested vessel. If it does, the vessel will continue its voyage, leaving deposited this amount as a security for the alleged maritime claim.

Since, as a general rule, the request for arrest is placed as a precautionary measure prior to the filing of the lawsuit, it will remain without effect if the creditor/attaching creditor does not initiate the proceedings on the merits of the dispute before the competent court and within the time limit established by the court executing the precautionary measure. In such a situation, the arresting party shall be ordered to pay damages that will be considered by the court, and the security deposited by the arresting party before the court shall be forfeited.

In summary, Article 1 of the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships lists what are considered “maritime claims” that can justify the arrest of a ship, so there are many agents in the sector that may be protected by this tool to guarantee their claims (seafarers, ship suppliers, shipyards, administration, etc.).

AIYON Abogados handles arrests of ships requested by any kind of creditors, as well as lifting of the arrests of shipowners/charterers affected by this measure; moreover, for all those who want to find out more in detail about this concept we have the following platform: www.shiparrestrelease.com

Read article published…

Royal Decree 339/2021, of May 18, regulating the safety and pollution prevention equipment on recreational craft

/in , , /by

From the relentless technological evolution of the equipment to be installed on recreational craft along with the latest update coming from Europe on recreational craft and marine equipment, derives the new Royal Decree 339/2021 of May 18, regulating the safety equipment and pollution prevention of recreational craft  published today May 19, 2021, and whose entry into force is set for next July 1, 2021.

For the purposes of this RD, recreational craft will be considered all types of vessels which, regardless of their means of propulsion, have a length between 2.5 and 24 meters, have been designed and intended for recreational and sporting purposes, and which do not carry more than 12 passengers.

The main objectives include, on the one hand, the determination of the equipment for the prevention of pollution of the marine environment and the safety equipment for navigation, rescue and fire protection, as well as the distinction of the requirements for such equipment. And, on the other hand, the establishment, in a clear and precise way, of the obligations of the shipowners in relation to them.

Regarding the novelties included in this Royal Decree, developed in six chapters and several final provisions, the extension of its scope of application stands out (art. 2), which will be extended: (i) to recreational vessels that are registered or pre-registered in Spain; (ii) to those that carry out an activity for commercial or lucrative purposes in maritime waters in which Spain exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction, regardless of their flag State; (iii) and that navigate in Spanish internal maritime waters or the Spanish territorial sea, regardless of their flag State, and that are owned or have their use and enjoyment, natural or legal persons with residence or registered office in Spain.

Therefore, it will apply even to those vessels that, flying a foreign flag, sail through Spanish waters and the owner or the person who is actually using the vessel has a connection with Spain. As can be deduced, the aim is to avoid the escape of recreational vessels to foreign flags with more lax requirements in terms of safety and pollution prevention.

It also highlights the reference to the responsibility of owners and skippers in relation to the maintenance of the boat and safety and prevention equipment, in terms established in this Royal Decree, ensuring in any case that the boat is always in a position, to go to sea without danger to the maximum people authorized on board.

In addition to developing the sections of Rescue Equipment, Navigation Equipment, Fire Safety Equipment and means of rescue and Pollution Prevention, the regulation includes the determination of the penalty system applicable in case of infringement. To this end, it specifies and graduates the infringements already established in the Consolidated Text of the Law of State Ports and Merchant Marine, approved by the Royal Legislative Decree 2/2011, of September 5, which facilitates the determination of the corresponding penalties to be imposed, which will range from 100 € to 3,000 €.

“MV EVER GIVEN”: Insurances and General Average

/in , , /by

On 23 March 2021, the vessel “MV EVER GIVEN”, one of the largest container ships in the world with a capacity of 20,000 TEUs, was grounded in the Suez Canal (Egypt). From then on and for the following six days, until the ship could finally be towed, an immense traffic jam was generated in the area, blocking the passage of thousands of goods transported daily by this waterway.

To date, there have been countless delays, because, in addition to those suffered by the cargo carried by the “MV EVER GIVEN”, there have also been delays suffered by all the ships and their cargoes that were trapped on one side of the canal or the other during this time. This has affected a significant number of shipowners and shippers worldwide.

Over time, all the details of this event will become clearer, and responsibilities will be clarified, but what can be said is that the insurance coverages of the affected operators and agents will have to be activated in order to be able to face the many costly claims that will be filed.

In this case, the directly affected insurance policies would be:

– Hull & Machinery Insurance, for damage to the proper vessel and    salvage costs.

– Protection and Indemnity Insurance (P&I), for shipowners and charterers, with civil liability cover.

– Cargo insurance for shippers, for possible damage to cargo.

The “MV EVER GIVEN” has been arrested since 13 April, at the request of the Suez Canal Authority (hereinafter SCA). SCA originally claimed $916 million for the non-payment of the ship’s refloating and maintenance costs but decided to reduce the claim by almost a third part, filing a final claim for $600 million in order to find a quick solution for the matter.

In view of this situation, several relevant questions arise.

 

  • Do shippers have the right to claim against the carrier for the delay?

Spanish law provides some protection in this respect, obliging the shipper to prove that the delay suffered was not “reasonable”. However, after analysing the standard contracts of carriage generally used by maritime carriers, it is very unlikely that the applicable law be Spanish law, as English law usually dominates these agreements.

At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that losses arising from delay are usually excluded from cargo insurance policies for maritime transport, as is the case in the most common clauses, the English clauses (ICCA).

 

  • Why does the ship’s operator, Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine CORP (EMC), not transfer the cargo to other vessels so that it can reach its destination?

The answer to this question is not simple.

Although the operator’s legal representatives are struggling to obtain the necessary permits and transhipments, at present the vessel and the cargo transported are understood to be a single entity and indivisible unit affecting the expenses claimed by SCA. This means that as long as the vessel is detained in Egypt, so are its goods.

Furthermore, to be able to carry out the transhipment, the vessel “MV EVER GIVEN” would have to move from the lake where it is berthed and detained (Great Bitter Lake) to the nearest port.

Finally, it cannot be overlooked that the shipowner has declared the figure of “general average”, so that the cargo transported is affected by the costs of the general average.

 

  • What is “General Average”?

It is understood as any expense or sacrifice reasonably and intentionally incurred by the shipowner, the purpose of which is to preserve the maritime adventure, the voyage and the goods involved in a maritime expedition, avoiding greater damage.

Once the general average is declared, all the interests involved (the ship, the cargo, the freight, etc.) have the legal obligation to contribute proportionally to the payment of those damages or expenses generated to save the voyage and the rest of the cargo. Therefore, this is a figure that is usually present in the ICC coverage agreed by shippers.

Shippers who do not have the goods insured under these clauses will have to provide personally the guarantees required by the shipowner to ensure their subsequent contribution to the general average. As long as such guarantees are not provided, the goods will continue retained by the shipowner.

In summary, in view of the fact that the vessel continues detained while waiting for the evaluation of the possible transhipment of the cargo to other vessels, we recommend that those affected receive specialised and appropriate legal advice to deal with the damages that they may have suffered due to this situation with all the guarantees.

Read the article published…

Aiyon Abogados, a “boutique law firm” of experts in Maritime, Transport, International Trade and Insurance Law

/in , , /by

As the newspaper EL Correo Español – El Pueblo Vasco reports in one of its article published in March, the professionals who make up AIYON Abogados, S.L.P. like to consider themselves members of a ’boutique law firm’ that has earned the trust of its clients and the recognition of its sector.

The AIYON Abogados team is distributed in four locations: Bilbao, Madrid, Cadiz and Algeciras, and all of them form a team of experts in Maritime, Transport, International Trade and Insurance Law that is proud to be able to handle national and international cases of great importance while defending the interests of clients with a very diverse profile. In all cases and circumstances, the secret of success lies in a principle that has been maintained to the letter since the team started working together: direct and personalised attention for a comprehensive legal service provided twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year.

Furthermore, one of AIYON Abogados’ strengths is its international projection. Major world references such as ‘The International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG)’, ‘The Insurance Disputes Law Review’ and ‘The Chambers ‘Shipping 2021′ Global Practice Guide’ have entrusted the firm with their chapters on Spanish law in both maritime and insurance law.

All of this, without forgetting that the greatest guarantee of its success is the accumulated experience of more than twenty years in handling countless cases in their areas of expertise, some of them as well known as the sinking and pollution of ‘Prestige’, the sinking of ‘Costa Concordia’, the hijacking of the fishing boat ‘Alakrana’, the capsizing of the ship ‘Denev’, etc.

Read article published HERE

M/V “Ever Given”: Do you have any cargo on board? How to protect your interests

/in , /by

On 23 March 2021, one of the largest containerships in the world grounded in the Suez Canal. The vessel was touching the banks on both sides effectively blocking the channel for six days. This caused the stoppage of the “EVER GIVEN” voyage and the delay of about four hundred vessels that were queuing to cross the channel. As a result of this situation, the delivery of the cargoes on board “EVER GIVEN” and the other blocked vessels has been also delayed.

The 2018 container vessel was bound to the Port of Rotterdam from where its cargo was to be distributed to its destination, many of them to Spain.

Although some of the details of the casualty and the causes are still unknown, cargo owners are worried about what will happen to their cargoes now.

Presently, the M/V “EVER GIVEN” has re-floated and is being towed to a place of refuge where to she will be inspected for damage assessment. This could take days, if not weeks. In fact, if the vessel does not pass the inspection, the vessel operator, EVERGREEN, will probably be compelled to tranship the cargo onto one or more alternative ships to conclude the voyage. This will increase the delay on delivery and the costs.

As a summary, therefore, and regardless of how the events will develop, the cargoes on board the “EVER GIVEN” and/or the approximately four hundred blocked vessels will arrive to their destination with important delays and significant costs. The situation with the blockage will take time to be resolved and that it will also cause bottlenecks on the global logistic chain.

Would cargo owners be entitled to claim damages for delayed delivery against the carrier?

Spanish law does give some protection on that respect. To claim damages for delay, cargo interests will need to provide evidence that the delay was unreasonable under the circumstances. Would Spanish Law be sufficient protection? Would Spanish law be applicable to the contract of carriage? After having studied the contracts of carriage generally used by sea carriers, we may conclude that Spanish law will not be applicable as the conditions of these contracts usually remit to English law.

Will the insurance grant cover for delay?

Most marine cargo insurance policies do not cover losses due to delays. This is the case, for example, of “all risks” ICC A clauses in which delay is expressly excluded. Therefore, unless there is an express agreement to remove such exclusion, cargo insurance will not cover the losses for delay.

Lastly, cargo owners might end paying a large part of the invoice for the salvage operation through General Average.

Cargo interests should also bear in mind that salvors that are intervening to rescue the vessel and her cargo have the right to lien the vessel, the cargo, her freight, and bunkers as a guarantee for the payment of their salvage reward. Presumably, a salvage contract (LOF) has been entered into by Owners and Salvors through which the salvage costs and reward will be paid by Owners and the Salvors will not claim against cargo interests directly.

However, it is possible that the shipowner decides to declare General Average. This is a specialty of maritime law based on equity and an interesting option to the shipowner since it requires that interested parties in the marine adventure (vessel, cargo, freight) contribute in proportion to their interests to the payment of the salvage costs.

Cargo interests insured under any of the ICC policies will be covered and their insurer will take care of the General Average contribution. But uninsured cargo interests will need to handle the claim and procure average guarantees/security by themselves before they obtain delivery of the cargo. If guarantee/security for the General Average contribution is not placed, the carrier will be entitled to exercise a lien on the cargo.

Consequently, cargo interests are encouraged to contact their legal advisors to take adequate steps for the handling on this incident.

Challenges for Maritime Law

/in , /by

“Puertos y más”, a magazine specialised in transport and logistics, publishes today an article on the challenges the maritime sector is facing in these difficult times by our colleagues Verónica Meana and Irantzu Sedano.

The year 2020 and its special circumstances had a profound impact on the maritime sector. The covid pandemic has altered the way we operate, hindering the supply of goods and limiting the mobility of people. This has led to the maritime transport of goods being declared an essential activity in Spain. Moreover, the year ended with the culmination of Brexit, which meant no less than additional challenges.

Maritime law is obliged to adjust to the new times and the circumstances arising from this new reality, which is why, in 2021, there are many challenges that the sector in Spain is facing. These include, for example, the development of intermodality, guaranteeing thus connectivity with air and land means of transport, and above all, the rail transport.

Thanks to these connections, delivery times will be speeded up, which will ensure the supply of essential goods. Improving work safety is another challenge to be met that will require bettering the employment situation of seafarers, which has been seriously jeopardised by the pandemic, including labour conflicts due to excessive embarkation periods; fatigue syndromes; uncertainty about their embarkation or disembarkation dates and reliefs; and the need to ensure the repatriation of workers.

We cannot also forget the need to guarantee environmental sustainability of maritime services. Maritime transport is still considered a highly polluting mode of transport (due to the high volume of goods transported by sea and the consequent abundance of maritime traffic). A major effort has already been made to enforce the use of low sulphur fuels, but the maritime industry wants to and must continue to evolve. Some of the challenges that arise in this respect are: researching maritime propulsion systems powered by renewable energies; developing the shipping industry to make new constructions less polluting; and adapting existing ships to new, more environmentally friendly fuels.

Finally, it is necessary to continue to make progress in the digitalisation of administrative and bureaucratic processes, as well as in the automation of port-logistic operations and to adapt legislation to the autonomous vessels that are already a reality. After the complex 2020, this year will bring changes to some of the regulations that affect the sector, such as the State Ports and Merchant Marine Act and the Maritime Navigation Act, as part of the constant adaptation and modernisation required by the maritime world at international, European and national level, as well as by the agents that form part of it, as is the case of our firm, to meet the future challenges the sector is facing.

Read article published HERE

BREXIT: The New European Scenario

/in , , , , /by

The European Union ended the year 2020 with breaking news. It was the agreement reached “in extremis” with the United Kingdom on the management of trade relations after 1st January 2021; the date on which, after approximately 4 years of extensions and postponements, BREXIT would finally enter into force.  

After arduous negotiations, on 24th December, Ursula Von der Leyen (President of the European Commission) and Boris Johnson (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) announced that an agreement had been reached, avoiding so the much feared “Hard Brexit” or “extreme Brexit”, whereby the United Kingdom would leave the European Union without a previous agreement.

There is no doubt that the close trade relations that exist between the two territories have produced significant pressure which has led to this final agreement. In any case, whether by means of a global agreement or by means of sectoral agreements, trade relations with the United Kingdom would ultimately be signed since UK is a vital trading partner for the European Union. In fact, for Spain, the United Kingdom is the fifth in the scale of its trading partners, moving (between imports and exports) over 32 billion Euros during 2019. 

The importance of this agreement arises, to a certain extent, from the fact that thanks to it, bilateral trade relations can be maintained without customs duties or quotas, an aspect that is of particular interest to exporters and importers, but which in general affects the whole society, since the costs to be assumed in import operations, as well as in export operations, will always have an impact on the final cost and customer. However, this agreement does not prevent bureaucratic, administrative, and fiscal procedures from being multiplied due to this departure. Examples of it are customs declarations, sanitary and phytosanitary controls, and the payment of VAT on the declared value of the goods at the time of import.

In other words, since 1st January 2021 the United Kingdom is a third country for the European Union, and as it happens with goods entering and leaving third countries outside the EU, the Spanish Customs Authorities will have to ensure that they are informed on and have control of the goods that are to be introduced into their territory and, consequently, into the European Union. 

This information about entries and exits will generally be provided by the company carrying out the transport of the goods (shipping companies, airlines, or land carriers) and must coincide with the presented customs declarations. In fact, efficiency and speed in the transmission of this information will be key to facilitating border formalities and thus avoiding discontinuities and delays, which for now are unavoidable. Companies that usually trade with importers or exporters from third countries outside the Union are already aware of the formalities required for these operations.

 

TRADE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, ON THE OTHER HAND

With respect to the Agreement reached, we would like to highlight its second part, which includes aspects related to trade, transport, fishing and other provisions that are of interest to our sector with the aim of facilitating trade of goods between the parties and maintaining liberalized trade to the extent agreed in the Agreement. 

To this end, different aspects are addressed, such as:

  1. The recognition of the freedom of transit through their territories to persons with nationality of either Party. 
  2. The prohibition of customs duties, that is, a Party may not adopt or maintain any duties, taxes and other charges imposed on the exportation of a good to the other Party or in connection with such exportation, or any tax that is higher than the tax or charge that would be imposed on similar goods but destined for domestic consumption. 
  3. With respect to taxes and charges, the Parties may not assess these amounts ad valorem, but may simply charge such taxes and charges limited in amount to the cost of the services rendered and shall not constitute indirect protection of domestic products. There are exceptions for some specific services.
  4. Agree that the Parties may not impose restrictions, prohibitions or monopolies on imports or exports of goods destined for the territory of the other Party (except Article 11 of the GATT 1994). 
  5. That each Party shall determine in its territory the customs value of the goods of the other Party. 
  6. To create rules for determining the origin of goods for the purposes of applying preferential tariff treatment and to establish origin procedures. 
  7. Agree on the sanitary and phytosanitary measures to be applied on goods imported into the Parties to this Agreement. 
  8. Ensure customs cooperation for trade simplification. To this end, measures such as the rapid release of goods, the presentation and advance electronic processing of documentation, the promotion of the association of authorized economic operators, the establishment of the single window, the facilitation of roll-on-roll-off traffic, etc., are taken. 

Although this agreement regulates many aspects of interest for the sector, there are other things that it does not resolve and that are fundamental for the correct development of commercial relations. In particular, we would like to make special mention of the exequatur or recognition of foreign judgments, as well as the jurisdiction applicable in the resolution of disputes between the Parties. 

Given the transcendence that an incorrect choice of the applicable jurisdiction may imply for the subjects involved in international trade operations, from AIYON Abogados we would like to recommend all agents involved in trade with the United Kingdom, before starting a new commercial relationship, to make express agreements where the jurisdiction to which they will submit their disputes is agreed. In case of pre-existing commercial relations, we recommend analysing whether the jurisdiction agreed upon at the time is still the best for the defence of their present and future commercial interests.

Royal Decree 927/2020, of 27 October, which extends the scope of the action of Ship Inspection and Survey Organizations, and modifies Royal Decree 877/2011, of 24 June, and Royal Decree 357/2015, of 8 May

/in , , /by

States are responsible for ensuring that ships under their flag are designed, constructed and maintained in compliance with the safety requirements established in the conventions and instruments approved within the IMO. To carry out these tasks, they are supported by the classification societies.

The regulation of classification societies in Spain is contained in articles 97 and 107 of Law 14/2014, of 24 July, known as the Spanish Shipping Act. It is algo applicable the Royal Decree 877/2011, issued following European Directive 2009/15/CE, of 23 April 2009, that establishes unified rules and regulations for organizations in charge of inspection and recognition of vessels, and various European Regulations, such as Regulations (EC) 336/2006, of 15 February 2006, y (EU) 1257/2013 of 20 November 2013.

The main purpose of Royal Decree 927/2020 is to establish in which cases a recognized organization can act in the name of the Spanish Maritime Administration The aim is to reduce waiting times for obtaining the obligatory certificates and to improve the competitiveness of ships flying the Spanish flag as these cannot see their activity affected by delays in carrying out necessary inspections. The new international Conventions and EU Regulations affecting maritime safety and prevention of contamination of the marine environment require more flexibility and delegating on these organizations.

The cases in which recognized organizations may be authorized to carry out ship surveys on behalf of the Spanish General Directorate of the Merchant Navy (GDMN) are as follows:

a) When a Spanish ship is in a foreign port and needs to extend the term of validity of any mandatory certificate as the expiration date approaches.

b) When a Spanish ship is dedicated to making trips between foreign ports and its transfer to a national port is detrimental to its commercial exploitation, to carry out any of the mandatory surveys.

c) When a Spanish ship, due to breakdowns or other causes of accident, must be recognized abroad.

d) When a Spanish ship is built or carries out transformation, reform or major repair works abroad.

e) When a Spanish ship calls in a Spanish port on non-working days or outside working hours, or for any other reason, the surveys cannot be provided by the inspection services of the Harbour Master Office.

f) When, in light of logistical conditions, to adapt to its procedures or the need for agility in the operation, the company so decides.

g) When a ship is abroad and requests to be flagged in Spain.

h) When a company has its head office abroad.

In addition to the above, authorized organizations will be able to control that the rules for the management of the operational safety of a vessel are followed and will be able issue and renew the maritime labour certificate and the declaration of maritime labour compliance Part I, referred to in the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC).

Transport Insurance: Limiting Clauses vs Delimitation Clauses

/in , , /by

Transport insurance is characterised by the principle of universality of risk, that is, the object of the insurance will be the damage that can be suffered by the goods during or as a consequence of the transport, without any other precision and independently of the nature of the incident occurred. In this context, the clauses delimiting the insured risk emerge. These should be differentiated from the limiting clauses of the insured party’s rights.

The character of the delimiting clauses consists of stipulating: (i) which risks constitute the object of the contract; (ii) in what amount; (iii) during what period; (iv) in what time frame. That is to say, the objective of these clauses is to individualise the risk and establish its objective basis, eliminating possible ambiguities and specifying the nature of the risk in coherence with the object of the contract.

This type of clause will never delimit the insured risk in any way that is  contradictory to the particular conditions of the contract or in an infrequent or unusual way (Sentence STS 853/2006 of September 11, STS 1051/2007 of October 17, STS 598/2011 of July 20 and STS 273/2016 of April 22).

With respect to the limiting clauses, their character is completely different since their main objective is to condition or modify the insured party’s right. The main characteristic of these clauses is that for the insured party they imply the introduction of exclusions that go beyond the natural content of the contract, restricting, conditioning or modifying his right to receive the compensation or benefit guaranteed in the contract (Rulings, STS 273/2016 of April 22, STS 58/2019 of January 29, STS 609/2019 of November 14 and STS 421/2020 of June 14).

Contrary to what might be expected, the limiting clauses are accepted by Spanish regulations and are perfectly valid as long as they comply with the requirements of the Law of Insurance Contracts. Specifically, Article 3 of the mentioned regulation states that the clauses limiting the rights of the insured party must be specially highlighted and must be specifically accepted by both parties in writing.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: Limiting clauses vs Delimitation clauses

Before starting the jurisprudential analysis of the validity and characteristics of the different clauses included in insurance policies and which affect in a direct way the rights of the insured party, we consider to be relevant to study a prime and practical example where we can observe the difference between the delimitation and limiting clauses: the requirement to subject the vehicle and the cargo to “due vigilance” during the transportation. A concept that represents a clear example of how insurance companies try to limit and consolidate their policies, through their clauses, so that the insured party guarantees a cargo transport that fulfils some minimum and general security requirements.

When considering the requirement to subject the vehicle and its load to “due vigilance”, an obligation that is imposed on the insured party in the agreed coverage, the first thing that should be emphasised is that its interpretation is not uniform or steady, since each insurance company will determine the characteristics or requirements it will demand from the insured party. However, we can outline some common patterns that are recurrent in most of the policies, which we set out hereafter:

– The vehicle must be completely and properly closed.

– The vehicle must have all the locking, alarm and locking devices available to it in proper working order and use.

– The vehicle may not be parked in inappropriate and tentative areas, that is lonely, poorly lightened areas with uncontrolled entrance, not subject of surveillance, etc.

– The vehicle must be parked primarily in a monitored parking, in a completely closed garage or building or in a solidly built and locked area.

– If the insured party proves the impossibility to park in an appropriate place, it is possible to accept other options of parking if: the vehicle is parked with other lorries, in properly-lighted areas adjacent to establishments open 24 hours a day, provided that the driver spends the night inside the vehicle, etc.

Having analysed the requirements stipulated in the transport insurance policy, the question to ask is: are these delimiting or limiting clauses?

Already in 2017, we published an article on the validity of the limitation of coverage of insurance policies for the transport of goods due to the lack of due vigilance during road transport (“Limitation of coverage due to lack of due vigilance during road transport“). At that time the Supreme Court, with its ruling of 7 November 2017 (STS 590/2017) recognized that there were two opposing interpretative criteria regarding the qualification of such clauses:

1. Those that consider that these clauses are delimiting for the purpose of the insurance.

2. Those that consider that these clauses are limiting the rights of the insured party.

At that time, the Supreme Court opted for the second interpretation, establishing an interpretative criterion for the rest of the courts. That means, it considered that the clauses that developed the concept of “due vigilance” limited and modified the rights of the insured party. The Judgement of November 7, 2017, reads as follows: “The clause that is the object of the dispute cannot be qualified as a clause that delimits the risk, given that its content, interpreted systematically, does not adjust to the nature and function of these clauses, that is, it does not attempt to individualize the risk of theft of the goods and to establish its objective basis. On the contrary, the criterion which it incorporates, in a decisive manner, apart from establishing or defining the objective basis of the risk, limits the cover initially agreed with the establishment of a regulation which departs from the natural content of the contract concluded, and from what may be considered usual or deriving from the introductory or particular clauses”.

Now, three years later, the Supreme Court, once again, ratifies this criterion by means of its Ruling of October 22, 2020 (STS 3415/2020), in which the limiting character of these clauses is reiterated and it is stated: “With respect to the distinction between clauses that delimit coverage and limiting clauses, the delimitation clauses specify the object of the contract and establish the risks that, in the event of its occurrence, cause the insured party to have the right to the benefit because it constitutes the object of the insurance. While the limiting clauses restrict, condition, or modify the insured party’s right to compensation or the benefit guaranteed in the contract, once the risk covered by the insurance has occurred. (…). The regulation of the insurance contract for land transport of goods itself establishes a series of material, temporal, and spatial exclusions and limitations: damage due to the intrinsic nature or inherent defects of the transported goods (Art. 57.2 LCS); carrying out the journey within the time limit (Art. 58 LCS); carrying out the transport within national territory (Art. 107.1.a LCS). These legal limitations, together with the intrinsic purpose of this insurance modality of compensation for material damage that the transported goods may suffer on the occasion of or as a consequence of the transport, make up its natural content. Whereas the rest of the limitations, which are usually more or less literal and extensive transcriptions of national or international forms (in this case, according to the policy itself, of the Institute Cargo Clauses, of the Institute of Insurers of London) suppose the introduction of exclusions that go beyond the natural content of the contract and, therefore, are limiting clauses, in the sense and with the effects foreseen in art. 3 LCS. As we have already stated in the aforementioned ruling 590/2017, of 7th November. 6.- Consequently, we must conclude that a clause such as litigious clause, which established a series of determining factors (places and times of parking, locked premises, surveillance, etc.) to the coverage of the risk in the event of theft of the goods, is a limiting clause of the insured party’s rights, and not merely one that delimits them”.

Although the criterion applied by the Supreme Court is clear, in the lower courts these clauses remain a controversial concept and that is because limiting clauses are every time broader and their presence is very frequent in insurance policies in general.

For all these reasons, we recommend that users (insured parties) duly analyse every type of insurance policy offered to them, particularly what regards the limiting clauses contained in the policy, before agreeing to any type of insurance contract. To this effect, you can always count on the assistance and advice of our law firm, AIYON Abogados.